Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great Britain gets along rather well with one intelligence agency devoted to domestic intelligence and one for international spying, MI5 and MI6 respectively. Two are devoted solely for domestic and international crime, their version of the FBI (which also has an intelligence component), and a single agency that handles electronic intelligence like the National Security Agency. Why we can't streamline the intelligence services is beyond me, after all that was supposed to be the function of the CIA which itself is now under the another bureaucracy, the Director of National Intelligence.
Because that would actually be do something effectual about Federal spending. And lord knows we can't do that.
Also, because we've become a nation of bed-wetters scared that there's jihadist behind every door, the blame for any subsequent terrorist attack would be put on the head of the President that dared dismantle the agency.
Because that would actually be do something effectual about Federal spending. And lord knows we can't do that. Also, because we've become a nation of bed-wetters scared that there's jihadist behind every door, the blame for any subsequent terrorist attack would be put on the head of the President that dared dismantle the agency.
Good luck getting rid of this cancer. Government never downsizes, it just morphs into something bigger under the lie er uh guise of streamlining for efficiency.
Financial collapse is probably our only chance to be rid of it.
It should be downsized and combine some agencies. Why have the DEA and FBI? Why not combine them and fire those people that are not needed?
I never understood this one, I mean do cities have a separate department for narcotics and another one for everything else except when they feel like investigating narcotics? It isn't like the FBI doesn't pursue narcotics, firearm violations.
I remember a few years ago they were talking about getting rid of the DEA and give the function to the FBI. The ATF needs to go away too and just let the FBI handle those duties. We have too many different law enforcement agencies that just fight for dollars and protect their own turf, jobs, promotions. 9-11 proved we don't need all these different agencies since none of them stopped 9-11 from happening.
We have the Dept of Ag, U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigations unit, and the Dept of Interior's Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Services, and the U.S. Park Police.
Now I am certain that there are folks in Washington who can give a long detailed explanation of why we need one group to patrol the National Parks in Washington, San Francisco and New York and another set to patrol National Parks outside of Cities although here in Philadelphia we have both patrolling on opposite sides of the same street. Now what distinguishes law enforcement in a national forrest from a national park is beyond me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
